Thank you Michael for this timely and brilliantly succinct article about artificial intelligence.
Thank you for drawing attention to Pope Leo’s Encyclical on AI, and the difference between human and artificial intelligence, namely the essentially human task of remaining in charge of what we require AI to do for us, so that moral choices can be made. Moral choices are much more than quickly processing information, and include sentience and soul. In simple terms, doing the right thing, guided by our shared humanity.
It is not every man for himself, nor every machine for itself, but rather that we are all in this together.
Can we please put all these considerations of AI into one key context?
That is, in all our world, there are no schools with essaying programs so students may probe the growth of other students as individuals in other cultures.
It takes skills to see others as individuals, and then to quote them (directly and indirectly). Students can first equip themselves with these skills in home classrooms. They can start with intro essays identifying themselves by the shifts in their styles of food, clothing, shelter from what they originally got from family and community to personal changes they then made. (Shelter may include interior design, exterior landscapes, and travel modes there.)
Students can learn first to analogize to fellow classmates in those home classrooms. Then send batches of eventually revised essays to peer classroom in another culture.
No one learns any literacy as basically decently human as this anywhere in the world because what Michael here calls moral growth, human dignity, humility, and spiritual maturity give way everywhere to the standardized testing and the corporate-packaged textbooks that value instead all being neutered, grouped, categorized, and commodified.
AI can work wonders with the latter type of "person," as its metrics are all most easily numbered, counted, and machine graded.
The latter, our ubiquitous dehumanized standards only, govern all schools -- even the Pope's.
"But law cannot substitute for a transformed moral imagination. A society that worships profit will always find ways to baptize extraction as innovation."
That was absolutely surgical, you're getting into some serious deep philosophy here, this is what makes me happy I joined substack. I just got here yesterday, and I'm about to start sharing things I have written that resonate with this!
Here is something of mine that fits your statement:
"I'd rather someone read this because they're asserting their own agency in awareness and willing to be an active participant in promoting a future of symbiosis where technology is desperately needed to pick up the pieces of a society built on empire collapse cycles and oligarchy. Someone who wonders: are these machines getting smart enough to sort out the pathological disruptive extractive humans from the supportive ethical and moral ones?"
Thank you Michael for this timely and brilliantly succinct article about artificial intelligence.
Thank you for drawing attention to Pope Leo’s Encyclical on AI, and the difference between human and artificial intelligence, namely the essentially human task of remaining in charge of what we require AI to do for us, so that moral choices can be made. Moral choices are much more than quickly processing information, and include sentience and soul. In simple terms, doing the right thing, guided by our shared humanity.
It is not every man for himself, nor every machine for itself, but rather that we are all in this together.
Can we please put all these considerations of AI into one key context?
That is, in all our world, there are no schools with essaying programs so students may probe the growth of other students as individuals in other cultures.
It takes skills to see others as individuals, and then to quote them (directly and indirectly). Students can first equip themselves with these skills in home classrooms. They can start with intro essays identifying themselves by the shifts in their styles of food, clothing, shelter from what they originally got from family and community to personal changes they then made. (Shelter may include interior design, exterior landscapes, and travel modes there.)
Students can learn first to analogize to fellow classmates in those home classrooms. Then send batches of eventually revised essays to peer classroom in another culture.
No one learns any literacy as basically decently human as this anywhere in the world because what Michael here calls moral growth, human dignity, humility, and spiritual maturity give way everywhere to the standardized testing and the corporate-packaged textbooks that value instead all being neutered, grouped, categorized, and commodified.
AI can work wonders with the latter type of "person," as its metrics are all most easily numbered, counted, and machine graded.
The latter, our ubiquitous dehumanized standards only, govern all schools -- even the Pope's.
Speechless! It's all covered here.
I hope our rule makers are listening and that we are strong enough and persistent enough to make them.
Thank you for this💚
"But law cannot substitute for a transformed moral imagination. A society that worships profit will always find ways to baptize extraction as innovation."
That was absolutely surgical, you're getting into some serious deep philosophy here, this is what makes me happy I joined substack. I just got here yesterday, and I'm about to start sharing things I have written that resonate with this!
Here is something of mine that fits your statement:
"I'd rather someone read this because they're asserting their own agency in awareness and willing to be an active participant in promoting a future of symbiosis where technology is desperately needed to pick up the pieces of a society built on empire collapse cycles and oligarchy. Someone who wonders: are these machines getting smart enough to sort out the pathological disruptive extractive humans from the supportive ethical and moral ones?"
You have put into words that which I could not. You have helped to clarify my fear and hope for AI . Thank you. I am in awe of your talent.
We are called to be fellow “artisans of hope”